Lessons from Latvia s internal adjustment strategy Ilmārs Rimšēvičs Governor of the Bank of Latvia September 4, 2012
Presentation outline Overheating of Latvia s economy Expansionary consolidation Lessons learned Latvia s experience in global context
Latvia s economy was on a fast track during 2004-20072007
Past growth was fuelled by massive capital inflows after the EU accession, adding considerably to a build up of excessive demand and real estate bubble Bank of Government Commercial Latvia bd budget Banks FDI EU Funds Labour remittances 1 EUR = 0.702804 LVL
Labour market overheated significantly, driving wages above productivity and hurting competitiveness 200 Wages and productivity, 2000=100 190 180 170 160 150 140 130 120 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Source: CSB, Bank of Latvia staff calculations Productivity Real wage
Excessive demand showed up in massive current account deficits Current account balance, % of GDP 0.0-5.0 50-6.7-8.2-10.0-12.9-12.6-15.0-20.0-22.6-22.4-25.0 Source: Bank of Latvia 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007
GDP was pushed up by banks borrowing abroad and channelling funds into economy to nurture massive lending boom, until the bubble collapsed Credit to residents, % y-o-y 70 60 +60.4 50 40 30 20 10 0-10 -5.6 I 2004 I 2005 I 2006 I 2007 I 2008 I 2009 I 2010 I 2011 I 2012 Source: Bank of Latvia
Latvia has lived through a boom-bust cycle: severe recession followed years of unsustainable double digit growth Real GDP growth (%) 15.0 10.0 5.0 7.2 7.6 8.9 10.1 11.2 9.6 55 5.5 0.0-5.0-3.3-0.3-10.0 0-15.0-20.0-17.7 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: CSB
Over the past boom Latvia was running enormous underlying fiscal gap that played out fully during the recession years General Government budget balance (ESA 95), % of GDP 0-2 -4-6 -8-10 -12-3.3 33-6.3-8.4-7.3-5.3-2.0-5.6-0.5-2.1-14 -16-14.1-18 -20-18.6 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012F Consolidation effort Actual (targeted) balance Fiscal gap Structural budget balance Source: Eurostat, F Bank of Latvia staff estimation
To be or not to be, was the question in 2008 Many suggested devaluation as a way out of the crisis. Why devaluation was not an appropriate solution?
Devaluation is not a solution for Latvia High import content in exports and domestic produc- tion, competitive gains reduced by surge in input costs No immediate improvement in the current account (Marshall-Lerner condition is not met) High share of FX liabilities: many corporates would face negative equity immediately Loss of credibility and a likely run on banks Court system unable to cope with sharp increase in insolvency cases, inefficient insolvency procedure No motivation to improve efficiency and productivity
The internal adjustment was the only path to follow Time bought for structural reforms that smoothen adjustment Improvement of public sector efficiency Less corporate bankruptcies reduce costs for the economy More gradual adjustment motivates businesses for productive improvements Latvia s economy is reasonably flexible to adjust Society understands the root causes of crisis and supports necessary austerity and reforms
Latvia implemented massive frontloaded fiscal consolidation to regain confidence and put public finance on a sustainable footing Breakdown of budget consolidation measures, % of GDP Source: Ministry of Finance; Bank of Latvia staff calculations
Budget consolidation helped to stabilize debt at a moderate level and to avoid initially expected debt explosion 50 45 40 35 General government gross debt, % of GDP 36.7 44.7 42.6 42.4 30 25 20 19.8 15 10 5 0 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012F Source: Eurostat; Bank of Latvia staff estimation
How Latvia managed to accomplish what initially was claimed being impossible?
A speedy consolidation can be compared to a timely pruning an apple-tree you earlier and richer harvest
How Latvia managed to accomplish what initially was claimed being impossible?
How Latvia managed to accomplish what initially was claimed being impossible?
How Latvia managed to accomplish what initially was claimed being impossible?
Despite loud ex-ante warnings of protracted recession risks under internal adjustment scenario, a strong V shaped recovery followed 15 Real GDP growth, % 10 5 5.5 0-5 -10-15 -20 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Source: CSB
Growth has been supported by regained competitiveness: wage-productivity gap has been closed Real hourly wage and labour productivity per hour (seasonally adjusted), 2005 Q1 = 100 150 140 130 120 110 100 90 2004 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2005 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2006 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2007 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2008 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2009 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2010 0 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 2011 1 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Source: CSB; Bank of Latvia staff calculations Labour productivity Real wage
Regained competitiveness has boosted exports: Latvia ranges among the export leaders in Europe Merchandise export revenue growth (2011 over 2009, %) 90 85 80 70 72 71 71 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 55 53 44 44 43 43 42 38 35 34 34 33 33 32 31 30 29 29 26 23 21 10 2 Estonia Bulgaria Latvia Lithuania Romania Greece Czech Republic Malta Sweden Cyprus Slovakia Poland Hungary United Kingdom Portugal Slovenia Netherlands Germany Spain Austria Belgium Italy Finland France Denmark Ireland Luxembourg Source: Eurostat
Latvia and other Baltic countries have clearly benefited from getting through the internal adjustment at an early stage now we are leading growth in Europe GDP growth in 2011, % y-o-y 8.0 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0-2.0-4.0-6 6.0-8.0 Estonia Lithuania Latvia Poland Sweden Slovakia Austria Germany Finland Romania Malta Belgium Bulgaria Czech Republic France Hungary Netherlands Luxembourg Denmark United Kingdom Ireland Spain Cyprus Italy Slovenia Portugal Greece Source: Eurostat
Indeed, Latvia has become the fastest growing economy in Europe this year GDP growth in Latvia, % y-o-y 8.0 7.0 Latvia European Union average 6.9 60 6.0 5.0 5.1 4.0 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0-1.0 2011 I II III IV 2012 I II Source: CSB
What are the lessons learned?
This crisis has shown that MORE is LESS and LESS is MORE
Latvia s example shows that Speed, Ownership, Commitment and Solidarity works 10 Talks about Real GDP growth, % y-o-y 5 0 consolidation and inability to deliver -5 08 I 20 II III IV 09 I 20 II III IV 10 I 20 II III IV 20 011 I II III IV 12 I 20 II -10-15 First large consolidation implemented by Dombrovskis government -20 Source: CSB
How does this look from a global lblperspective?
"One doesn't die from debt, one dies from not being able to borrow" General government gross debt, % of GDP 200 150 Rogoff & Reinhart 2005 debt thresholds for advanced (public debt) and emerging (external debt) economies 100 50 0 Greece* Italy Ireland Portugal US Belgium UK France EU27 Spain Germany Cyprus Hungary Malta Austria Netherlands Slovenia Poland Slovakia Finland Czech Rep. Latvia Denmark Lithuania Romania Sweden Luxembourg Bulgaria Estonia Source: AMECO, *- Greece after debt restructuring
"One doesn't die from debt, one dies from not being able to borrow" General government gross debt, % of GDP 200 150 Rogoff & Reinhart 2010 debt thresholds for advanced (public debt) and emerging (external debt) economies 100 50 0 Greece* Italy Ireland Portugal US Belgium UK France EU27 Spain Germany Cyprus Hungary Malta Austria Netherlands Slovenia Poland Slovakia Finland Czech Rep. Latvia Denmark Lithuania Romania Sweden Luxembourg Bulgaria Estonia Source: AMECO, *- Greece after debt restructuring
"One doesn't die from debt, one dies from not being able to borrow" General government gross debt, % of GDP 200 150 Rogoff & Reinhart 2013 debt thresholds for advanced (public debt) and emerging (external debt) economies 100 50 0 Greece* Italy Ireland Portugal US Belgium UK France EU27 Spain Germany Cyprus Hungary Malta Austria Netherlands Slovenia Poland Slovakia Finland Czech Rep. Latvia Denmark Lithuania Romania Sweden Luxembourg Bulgaria Estonia Source: AMECO, *- Greece after debt restructuring
After the crisis in early 1990-ties, the EU Nordic countries adhered to prudent fiscal strategies as a contrast to the rest of Europe and US 120 General government consolidated gross debt, % of GDP 100 US 80 60 EU Core countries 40 20 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 EU Nordic countries Source: IMF, EC, BoL staff calculations; EU Nordic countries = Sweden, Finland, Denmark; EU Core countries = Germany, France, UK; unweighted average
Despite fiscal prudence, EU Nordic countries have been able to sustain growth over past 20 years whereas US and EU Core countries have slowed down Average annual real GDP growth, % 1970-1990 1993-2013 EU Nordic countries 2.5 2.4 EU Core countries 2.7 1.8 US 3.1 2.6 Source: IMF, EC, BoL staff calculations; EU Nordic countries = Sweden, Finland, Denmark; EU Core countries = Germany, France, UK; unweighted average
Fiscal prudence has allowed EU Nordic countries to enter this crisis with low debt and small budget deficits 6 4 General government budget balance, % of GDP 2 0-2 -4-6 -8-10 -12 EU Nordic countries EU Core countries US -14 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 Source: IMF, EC, BoL staff calculations; EU Nordic countries = Sweden, Finland, Denmark; EU Core countries = Germany, France, UK; unweighted average
Thus in contrast to the rest of Europe and US, Nordic countries have sufficient fiscal space to accommodate future crises when they come Public debt, % of GDP* Budget balance, % of GDP* Interest payments, % of GDP EU Nordic countries EU Core countries 2011 2012 2011 2012 2011 2012 44.5 42.3-0.7 07-1.7 17 13 1.3 13 1.3 84.2 88.0-4.8-4.0 2.8 2.9 US 103.5 108.9-9.6-8.3 2.9 2.8 Source: IMF, EC, BoL staff calculations; EU Nordic countries = Sweden, Finland, Denmark; EU Core countries = Germany, France, UK; unweighted average